In order to render the Insolvency Act 1986 compatible with a bankrupt's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights it might be necessary to recognise in certain cases that creditors’ rights do not always prevail against all other interests.

The expropriation of registered land without compensation by operation of the principle of adverse possession does not advance any of the legitimate aims of the statutory provisions and is a disproportionate infringement of Article 1 protocol 1

For property transactions such as the transfer of housing under the Housing Act from one registered landlord to another, the appropriate test of proportionality under Article 1 Protocol 1 required a decision which was justified on the basis of a compelling case in the public interest and as being reasonably necessary but not obligatorily the least intrusive of Convention rights.

When notifying a site as an area of special scientific interest, English Nature was carrying out a statutory duty and any challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 should therefore be addressed at that statute, not the step taken by English Nature itself.

The right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 Protocol 1 was not infringed by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which permits mortgagees to sell properties without first obtaining a court order for possession.

The foundation for any claim to be a possession under Article 1 Protocol 1 must be a proved legitimate expectation, which cannot be established if a precondition to a claim to property has not been fulfilled

The loss of value to landowners caused by neighbouring developments did not constitute a separate or independent basis for alleging a breach of Articles 8 and Article1 of the First Protocol to the Convention. Not every adverse effect on residential amenity would amount to an infringement of the right to respect for a person's home under Article 8(1).

The Rail Regulator's scheme for calculating compensation due to the operator of passenger rail services for disruption and alteration to station access was reasonable and did not infringe Protocol 1 Article 1 of the Convention.

A person could not apply under Section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998 for a declaration that legislation was incompatible with the Convention unless he was adversely affected by it. The differential treatment of tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 in respect of notices to quit was not discriminatory within Article 14 of the Convention because it did not depend on their property or status but solely on the content of the covenant alleged to have been breached.

A compulsory purchase order would not be quashed where there had been sufficient consultation and a fair balance had been struck between the use of compulsory purchase powers and the rights of objectors under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art.8 and Protocol 1 Art.1.